Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere-
However, setting up a wikinews the way you did
it, without prior warning
This is untrue. After the creation of
nl.wikinews.org, I wrote:
"If everything is OK, and the board is happy with this language being
set up, I will go ahead and create the other ones which have sufficient
community support. "
There were no objections.
You forget one thing.
Editors on the french wikipedia do not lose their time reading you on
the foundation list. Most of them have no idea what is going here. And
you have similarly no idea of what is going on there.
Are you aware some wrote there this wiki should be deleted ?
You can't claim that there is no objection when people are not even
aware of something going on. You can't pretend the foundation list is a
channel of information read by anyone. Nowhere is written that this is
mandatory.
The truth is many editors in non english projects just do not read mails
here, and have no way to know what is decided by other people for them.
So, if you give an information, which you really want them to read, a
solution is to go to fr.wikipedia pump at least.
Given the opposition there was on the project, I think it would have
been appreciated that you at least mention the creation over there.
without taking
into account the strong opposition which existed in the
french community
You agreed to this approach. You are a member of the board of elected
*global* representatives. I respect your unhappiness, but you have got
yourself to blame as much as anyone else for this outcome. Please take
some responsibility for your own actions. I am a powerless user.
Powerless user ?
Please do avoid playing on this argument, it does not fit you well.
You have the power to set up a wiki even when editors are not
suppporting it.
You even have the power to make yourself sysop, bureaucrat, developer on
a wiki without asking and even telling anyone.
I could
not have created
fr.wikinews.org without the support
of you and the rest
of the board. You had the opportunity to raise objections, to define
stricter criteria than the ones I used, to talk to me. You did not.
My stupidity was not to set a criteria such as
* when starting a wiki, 5 editors should be required. These 5 editors
should be able to read and write the language to be created or their
votes will not be considered.
When a criteria must mention that an editor must be able to edit a wiki
for its vote to be valid, I think we are reaching a level of bureaucracy
that goes too far.
In any cases, I added the following criteria to the creation requirements
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Policy_for_wikis_in_new_la…
You write bitterly about "local community
wish[es] crushed by
globalization". Now, I know that you like to play the defender of the
oppressed. But I've got news for you, Florence: By that nomenclature,
you're one of the oppressors, part of the global elite that makes
decisions for small communities. You have power, I do not. You can fool
some people into thinking that you were "tricked" by the clever and
manipulative Erik, but the reality is that I have got to thank you. You
made
fr.wikinews.org possible. Thanks a lot for that. I appreciate the
support.
I hope you do.
*I* was not tricked by you at all.
You only made possible the existence of a local wiki with extremely
little support and broken rules.
People are
doing great things on them, but even after 2 years, these
projects are still hardly resources. They will be great things later,
but right now, they still host small communities.
That's fine with me. Someone has to lay the groundwork. It's OK for a
project to start small and to grow later. Aside from that, I am still
skeptical that Wiktionary is at all feasible with the current software,
and think that Wikisource should be merged into the Wikimedia Commons to
be successful.
I've said the same thing to Delphine: There's no point at all in being
paranoid about bad publicity. Those who want to harm us will find
reasons to do so. No amount of off-wiki preparation will prevent a
slamming anti-Wikinews editorial. But to believe that any such editorial
could do us any serious long-term harm is very naive and underestimates
the intelligence and autonomy of our readers and editors.
Regards,
Erik
Very naive ?
Well, there are some comments you should avoid making Erik.
I thought we had a sort of agreement to avoid personal attacks and to
respect other opinions on such matters. Over then ?